One poll says Clinton does best among gay voters, but is this true?

[RiverStone]

Listening to progressive talk radio (AM 620 - KPOJ) out of Portland this morning, folks were discussing a recent poll via Hunter College in New York which indicated Hillary was an overwhelming favorite of Gay voters. I found this curious as I have not experienced the gay vote as being driven by a mono-thematic view. Being supportive of gay and lesbian issues is important, but I would not think that would over shadow the greater Hillary concerns --- Kyle-Lieberman, IWR, DLC etc. Not that I've ever asked, but talking politics with friends that are gay; I don't recall a politicians' stand on gay rights as a first and foremost deciding factor. Though I'm open to being corrected on that point...

It is interesting to note that like many polls, this one may have an inherent bias built in. After quoting the story, please see the comment immediately following (cross posted via horizonr).

Do you believe Hillary trumps the other candidates with the Gay vote?

NYT Politics Blog
November 29, 2007, 4:12 pm
Clinton Polls Best Among Gays, Lesbians
By Kirk Johnson

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is the clear favorite among gay and lesbian voters, who see her as a champion of gay rights, according to new nationwide poll released today by Hunter College in New York. Almost 63 percent of respondents said they supported Senator Clinton, with Senator Barack Obama of Illinois a distant second with just over 22 percent.

The survey of 768 respondents, all of whom identified themselves as gay or lesbian to an interviewer, suggests a voting bloc that is overwhelmingly Democratic in its leanings – more than six-to-one over Republicans among the 579 who said they were likely primary voters. Of the Republican minority, 50 percent favored former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York, with Senator John McCain of Arizona second at 23 percent.

The poll, which had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, also went where most voter surveys never tread – into matters of sex and identity and how those issues are connected or disconnected with political views.

About one-third of the respondents, who were interviewed through an internet system link by Knowledge Networks Inc. between Nov. 15 and Nov. 26, said they became more liberal and more interested in politics after coming out about their sexuality. Overall, about 33 percent of the respondents described themselves as very interested in politics and public affairs, compared to about 22 percent of the general population asked the same questioned by Knowledge Networks.

* * * * * *

Comment #1 in response:

I’m sure you intended to mention that the study was “funded by a grant from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation” — the same Human Rights Campaign that, just a few weeks ago, sought to publicly humiliate Barack Obama re Donnie McClurkin, while keeping conveniently mum on the fact that Hillary Clinton has vocally anti-gay South Carolina state senator Darrell Jackson on her campaign’s payroll to the tune of $10,000 a month (a detail the campaign didn’t bother to mention when it rolled out Jackson’s endorsement last February).

Why didn’t you just go ahead and disclose who was behind this study?

Do you really think your readers can’t find out for themselves what the dots are and connect them?

— Posted by horizonr

link:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/clinton-polls-best-among-gays-lesbians/

[Stephanie]

1. That's funny because she's opposed to gay marriage.

She splits the difference by ssying that she's opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but she won't support it legislatively either. So she has a good answer for everyone depending on who's asking the question. Try calling her Senate office and asking where she stands.

[MadBadger]

5. But its not like the other candidates are saints on this issue either.

[Stephanie]

13. I think Kucinich is the only one who supports marriage equality.

Am I correct? Not sure.

[Orsino]

15. Not so funny.

But it might be after she's gone, and folks start dressing like her in parades.

Until then, let's keep bugging her.

[book_worm]

20. But aren't they all?

except for DK? who they probably, like most everyone else, feel has no chance of being nominated.

[Stephanie]

22. Yes, but the thread is about how she's the LGBT favorite

God knows why.

[rinsd]

2. LOL, Horizonr is apparently unaware of Obama's HEAVY courting of Darrel Jackson

He offered $5K a month and was trumped by Hillary's $10K.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/an_endorsement.html

Obama chose to stand with McClurkin when pressed. That may hurt him with LGBT community.

"Do you really think your readers can’t find out for themselves what the dots are and connect them? "

Ahh yes a call for facts when he offers omissions.

[xchrom]

3. you beat me to it -- any way -- lgbtq folk

are once again trying to parce out who will offer the best given every one is against us on the issue of marriage equality.

that's the real issue.

[RiverStone]

4. Tho do you believe marriage equality is the MOST

...important issue for the LGBT community when they ponder which candidate to support?

[xchrom]

6. what do you think?

[RiverStone]

8. no

As I said in my OP, that particular issue has never been the centerpiece of why and gay folks I know choose a candidate.

Important, absolutely - but other matters drive the decision more then simply gay right issues.

Though admittedly, I have never asked and my sample is limited.

Again, if this poll is accurate - I want to know why? If it is b.s., then never mind.

[xchrom]

9. you really need to pay attention to the threads

that spell out what comes with marriage equality.

you might have a better understanding of why it's important.

it's not pie in the sky equality we're talking here -- it's dollars and cents -- it's kids and inheritance.

it's hospital visitation rights.

it's a whole host of things that straights take for granted.

so in sense you're right -- and wrong -- marriage equality is a whole a bunch of things wrapped in a bundle.

[RiverStone]

12. again, I don't deny it's importance

Though it may be true that I take some things for granted; having never walked in the shoes of being a gay person in today's America.

Then may I ask you directly xchrom: Does a candidate's stand on marriage equality trump all other issues when you ponder your choice?

thanks :hi:

on edit: you kinda just answered that w/post #10

[maddiejoan]

7. Marriage is far less important to me --

--then ENDA being passed WITH trans-inclusion.

[xchrom]

10. it's ALL important.

lgbtq folk have to fight for every little thing we can get.

nothing and i mean nothing is going to come with out tremendous pressure placed on the candidates.

elections are always about lgbtq issues for me.

with marriage equality toping that list because of things like money, hospital vistaiton, kids, etc.

trans folk will benefit the same with that.

but we have to fight for all of it.

[maddiejoan]

21. Didn't say it wasn't.

I said what was important to ME.

That okay with you?

[cboy4]

11. Boy, there are a lot of gay imbeciles if Obama actually

come in #2.

Of course the gay friendliest candidate, without question, is Dennis Kucinich.

I can't imagine why I would not support Hillary if she's the nominee, but she's not my first choice.

on edit -- typo

[Neecy]

14. then I'm a gay imbecile...

I looked at all of the candidates, and while I like Edwards he's so totally locked into his view on gay marriage that I don't believe he'll change...same with Hillary, although she was never in the running for me.

I do believe that Obama can evolve on this issue. And if he can go on the 700 Club and defend our rights I think he's capable of laying the groundwork for change needed.

[cboy4]

17. Ooops. Well, I certainly don't think you're an imbecile

Neecy. That's for sure.

My view on Obama is that I can no longer trust him.

He had the opportunity to pull McClurkin, but decided instead to do what he wanted.

That makes me suspicious in relation to what else he could pull.

Personally, I think Edwards is the better choice, if only because both his wife and daughter support equal marriage.

Those are obviously some very influential people in his life, and I believe he can be swayed a lot easier than Obama who (in my opinion) is pandering to the fundies over at the 700 Club.

[Neecy]

19. That's okay

I wondered too about whether Edwards could be swayed but so far he's been consistent in opposing it. I'm also confused about what the "well, I oppose it but my more liberal wife and daughter support it" is supposed to be about. They won't be making the decisions, he will. It feels like a sop, a bone thrown my way. And I don't like that.

I'm not happy about the McClurkin situation - in fact, I'm still pissed about it - but on the whole I think he'll be more open to our issues. I don't think he pandered to the 700C - he told them we deserve equality, period. If he had been pandering he would have thrown us under the bus like Bill Clinton always did.

[nonconformist]

23. Doesn't Edwards support Civil Unions?

I'm not being snarky... I'm sincerely asking because I thought he did.

[Terran]

16. Just a guess here, but:

As a gay man, may I suggest that a large fraction of the glbt crowd favor Clinton because she's a woman, and we tend to see women as holding views more favorable on many issues of importance to us. Even if that's not actually the case with Clinton (i.e., no strong support for same-sex marriage rights), a lot of us are no better informed about politics than the average person and are just going with what seems like a good idea: first woman president. It's funny how straight progressives always assume that all gay men and women are smart, well-informed and highly political. Most of the gay people I know are not that way at all, unfortunately.

Me, I'm undecided...sort of just letting it play out. But Kucinich or Edwards would be my first choices.

[Laughing Mirror]

18. "champion of gay rights"???

I saw her walking in the Gay Pride parade in 2000 in NYC and I heard her make enticing "first thing when I'm elected" promises in a speech before a gay banquet that same year, promises to date still unfulfilled, of course. Too many distractions obviously, for the new senator: her war all those "we don't have the votes." So, apart from promises and a symbolic walk in a parade I don't know what she's done for gay people. And nobody has ever been able to tell me.

NY Times calling her a champion of gay rights sounds like their typical corporate bullshit. If she's a gay's rights champion, then Giuliani is our fairy godmother.